He picks up from a quote by General Ray Odierno who
claims that the Army owes women a shot at Ranger School:

“If we determine that we’re going to allow women to go into
infantry and be successful, they’re probably at some time going
to have to go to Ranger School.”

Odierno would be right if that’s all Ranger School is – a punch
hole in a ticket to command. Kilcullen says:

It is this culture of excellence and selflessness that attracts
young men to the Ranger brotherhood. The Ranger ethos is designed
to be deadly serious yet self-deprecating, focused entirely on
teamwork and mission accomplishment. Rangers put the mission
first, their unit and fellow soldiers next, and themselves last.
The selfishness so rampant elsewhere in our society has never
existed in the Ranger brotherhood.

And that is the secret of the brotherhood’s success. Some call it
“unit cohesiveness” but what they are really describing is a
transition from self-interest to selfless service. The notion of
allowing women into Ranger School because denying them the
experience would harm their careers makes Ranger graduates
cringe. Such politically correct thinking is the ultimate
expression of the “me” culture, and it jeopardizes core Ranger
ideals.

But, that doesn’t matter to Big Army — it doesn’t matter to those
people who are going to make the decisions, and who think that
special operations is some exclusive club they can’t join. Big
Army leaders like Eric Shinseki who
took Rangers’ berets from them and gave them to everyone, because
when Shinseki was a tanker who had his tanker black beret taken
from him in 1979, he couldn’t wait to take it back from the
Rangers.

If I thought for a second that allowing women in Ranger School
wouldn’t change the school and the valuable lessons they teach
young combat arms leaders, I’d say go ahead.

But I know Big Army better than that.

I watched simple things like allowing pregnant soldiers to remain
in the service turn into a huge leadership problem. I saw the
cadet corps of
The Citadel blamed for the failure of Shannon
Faulkner when she dropped out within days of
enrolling after it took two years of legal battles to get
her in the course. Wiki says of
her:

After four hours of the military indoctrination training,
she spent the remainder of the first week in the infirmary before
voluntarily resigning, citing emotional and psychological abuse
and physical exhaustion.

Yes, after four hours, she was exhausted. Actually, she expected
to be hand-carried through four years of college and spent not
one minute preparing for the rigors of cadet life. And yet the
cadets at the Citadel were blamed for her failure.

Similarly, the media would expect women to graduate from Ranger
School and blame the instructors and students for their failures
(there’s a thing called “peer evaluations” at Ranger School last
time I checked), so Big Army, in its infinite wisdom would change
the standards, and they’d probably do away with peer evals – one
of the most important parts of the school, so assholes don’t get
to be Rangers until they change their ways.

The whole point of Ranger School is to simulate combat stress as
closely as possible. It's mentally and physically demanding and
there’s no room for relaxed standards, unless we’re willing to
only fight enemies who’ll agree to relax their own standards in
regards to fighting women.

This isn’t a post against women in general, it’s post against Big
Army who I know will screw this up.